YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaigners

[Guest guest]

YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaigners

Dec 4, 2007

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVL8_L-Hff3bNhErs75Adr-5URmg

TORONTO - It may be better known as the place to go to watch a drunken

Hasselhoff eating a hamburger, but the video website YouTube has

also become a popular and effective soapbox for people who believe

vaccinations are harmful, a new scientific review reveals.

And public health authorities need to come to grips with the potential

impact YouTube, Facebook and the whole Internet-based

social-networking phenomenon could have on policies like universal

vaccinations, suggested the authors, researchers from the University

of Toronto and York University.

Senior author Dr. Kumanan said he calls the approach

" anti-vaccination 2.0 " - a play on the term Web 2.0.

" This is their new strategy for communicating, " said , an

internal medicine specialist and a public health policy researcher.

" These people believe their viewpoint is not being aired in public.

They believe that they are being shut out of the discourse and they

want to get their viewpoint out. And this is their way of creating

commercials for their viewpoints.

" And they're putting a lot of effort into it. And other people ...

just from the view counts and the ratings, are coming on and wanting

to find out more about these viewpoints. Their videos are being viewed

and rated highly. "

The findings were published Wednesday as a research letter in the

Journal of the American Medical Association.

and lead author Keelan have been collaborating for

several years on work aimed at understanding the anti-vaccination

movement.

When YouTube hit the web and started generating buzz, Keelan wanted to

see if vaccine opponents had recognized it as a unguarded portal to

the world's Internet users. They had.

Among the offerings were documentary-type videos capturing the views

of parents of autistic children who blame particular vaccines or

thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative formerly used in vaccine

manufacture, for the autism. (Thimerosal is still used in the

manufacture of flu vaccine for children.)

" It's the perfect venue for an anecdote, both positive or negative, "

Keelan said in an interview.

" And while it's certainly not the communications structure trained

public health professionals would think to use, anecdotes - we know

from research - are incredibly powerful at conveying information about

risk. And they're also incredibly persuasive. "

For this study, the authors searched YouTube for videos on

" immunization " or " vaccination " on Feb. 20, 2007, roughly a year after

the website was launched. They found 153. (On Tuesday, those same

search terms brought up 1,668 hits.)

Of that total, 73 were pro-immunization, 49 were anti-vaccination and

31 were deemed " ambiguous. " When the researchers looked at view counts

and ratings, the videos with the anti-vaccination messages were

watched more often and were rated more highly by viewers.

" We were startled by our findings, " admitted Keelan, an assistant

professor of public health sciences at the University of Toronto.

" We were expecting to see maybe some difference between the way

viewers saw the negative videos versus the positive videos. But we

weren't expecting it to be so significant. "

Janis Whitlock, a researcher at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.,

has been studying Internet message boards to see what role they might

play in spreading information about self-injury. Whitlock, who

recently shifted her attention to YouTube, agreed the medium is a

powerful one.

" YouTube has become ... the new message board. And it's so much more

powerful - at least for the self-injury stuff, " she said. " You

combined with the text these images and music ... phew... and it's

very intense. "

The authors and Whitlock said public health is going to have to come

to grips with this medium of information dissemination.

" It spreads. It spreads emotions. It spreads ideas. It spreads

methods. It spreads means. It spreads reasons, " said Whitlock, a

professor with Cornell's Family Life Development Center.

" And we can't ignore ... that it's the dissemination of information,

for ill or for good. "

acknowledged that in the past some vaccine advocates didn't

like to address the claims of opponents, assuming any discussion of

what was seen as views from the fringe was counterproductive. But the

Web 2.0 universe requires a new strategy, he suggested.

" In the past that could work, but it's not going to work anymore. You

could ignore it and not discuss it and perhaps it would eventually

peter out. But now there are ways for people with these viewpoints to

communicate with each other, " he said.

" These sites are now providing people with a mechanism by which they

can bypass the conventional filters and get their messages out. It can

be dangerous. The Internet is valueless in that respect. "

[Guest guest]

Kumanan was one of the creeps who was involved in the 2004 IOM fiasco: http://www.iom.edu/?id=26925 Aasa (P.S., I am sorry that that twit is a countryman of mine!) I would send him elsewhere if I could, however that is not always possible!autismlink <cindy@...> wrote: YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaignersDec 4, 2007http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVL8_L-Hff3bNhErs75Adr-5URmgTORONTO - It may be better known as the place to go to watch a drunken Hasselhoff eating a hamburger, but the video website YouTube hasalso become a popular and effective soapbox for people who believevaccinations are harmful, a new scientific review reveals.And public health authorities need to come to grips with the potentialimpact YouTube, Facebook and the whole Internet-basedsocial-networking phenomenon could have on policies like universalvaccinations, suggested the authors, researchers from the Universityof Toronto and York University.Senior author Dr. Kumanan said he calls the approach"anti-vaccination 2.0" - a play on the term Web 2.0."This is their new strategy for communicating," said ,

aninternal medicine specialist and a public health policy researcher."These people believe their viewpoint is not being aired in public.They believe that they are being shut out of the discourse and theywant to get their viewpoint out. And this is their way of creatingcommercials for their viewpoints."And they're putting a lot of effort into it. And other people ...just from the view counts and the ratings, are coming on and wantingto find out more about these viewpoints. Their videos are being viewedand rated highly."The findings were published Wednesday as a research letter in theJournal of the American Medical Association. and lead author Keelan have been collaborating forseveral years on work aimed at understanding the anti-vaccinationmovement.When YouTube hit the web and started generating buzz, Keelan wanted tosee if vaccine opponents had recognized it as a unguarded

portal tothe world's Internet users. They had.Among the offerings were documentary-type videos capturing the viewsof parents of autistic children who blame particular vaccines orthimerosal, a mercury-based preservative formerly used in vaccinemanufacture, for the autism. (Thimerosal is still used in themanufacture of flu vaccine for children.)"It's the perfect venue for an anecdote, both positive or negative,"Keelan said in an interview."And while it's certainly not the communications structure trainedpublic health professionals would think to use, anecdotes - we knowfrom research - are incredibly powerful at conveying information aboutrisk. And they're also incredibly persuasive."For this study, the authors searched YouTube for videos on"immunization" or "vaccination" on Feb. 20, 2007, roughly a year afterthe website was launched. They found 153. (On Tuesday, those samesearch terms

brought up 1,668 hits.)Of that total, 73 were pro-immunization, 49 were anti-vaccination and31 were deemed "ambiguous." When the researchers looked at view countsand ratings, the videos with the anti-vaccination messages werewatched more often and were rated more highly by viewers."We were startled by our findings," admitted Keelan, an assistantprofessor of public health sciences at the University of Toronto."We were expecting to see maybe some difference between the wayviewers saw the negative videos versus the positive videos. But weweren't expecting it to be so significant."Janis Whitlock, a researcher at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.,has been studying Internet message boards to see what role they mightplay in spreading information about self-injury. Whitlock, whorecently shifted her attention to YouTube, agreed the medium is apowerful one."YouTube has become ... the new message

board. And it's so much morepowerful - at least for the self-injury stuff," she said. "Youcombined with the text these images and music ... phew... and it'svery intense."The authors and Whitlock said public health is going to have to cometo grips with this medium of information dissemination."It spreads. It spreads emotions. It spreads ideas. It spreadsmethods. It spreads means. It spreads reasons," said Whitlock, aprofessor with Cornell's Family Life Development Center."And we can't ignore ... that it's the dissemination of information,for ill or for good." acknowledged that in the past some vaccine advocates didn'tlike to address the claims of opponents, assuming any discussion ofwhat was seen as views from the fringe was counterproductive. But theWeb 2.0 universe requires a new strategy, he suggested."In the past that could work, but it's not going to work anymore. Youcould ignore

it and not discuss it and perhaps it would eventuallypeter out. But now there are ways for people with these viewpoints tocommunicate with each other," he said."These sites are now providing people with a mechanism by which theycan bypass the conventional filters and get their messages out. It canbe dangerous. The Internet is valueless in that respect."

[Guest guest]

Kumanan and his cohorts have their sad-assed agendas, but I hope that most people can see past these, and not be fooled by their garbage, AasaAasa <penas7ar@...> wrote: Kumanan was one of the creeps who was involved in the 2004 IOM fiasco: http://www.iom.edu/?id=26925 Aasa (P.S., I am sorry that that twit is a countryman of mine!) I would send him elsewhere if I could, however that is not

always possible!autismlink <cindyautismlink> wrote: YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaignersDec 4, 2007http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVL8_L-Hff3bNhErs75Adr-5URmgTORONTO - It may be better known as the place to go to watch a drunken Hasselhoff eating a hamburger, but the video website YouTube hasalso become a popular and effective soapbox for people who believevaccinations are harmful, a new scientific review reveals.And public health authorities need to come to grips with the potentialimpact YouTube, Facebook and the whole Internet-basedsocial-networking phenomenon could have on policies like universalvaccinations, suggested the

authors, researchers from the Universityof Toronto and York University.Senior author Dr. Kumanan said he calls the approach"anti-vaccination 2.0" - a play on the term Web 2.0."This is their new strategy for communicating," said , aninternal medicine specialist and a public health policy researcher."These people believe their viewpoint is not being aired in public.They believe that they are being shut out of the discourse and theywant to get their viewpoint out. And this is their way of creatingcommercials for their viewpoints."And they're putting a lot of effort into it. And other people ...just from the view counts and the ratings, are coming on and wantingto find out more about these viewpoints. Their videos are being viewedand rated highly."The findings were published Wednesday as a research letter in theJournal of the American Medical Association. and lead

author Keelan have been collaborating forseveral years on work aimed at understanding the anti-vaccinationmovement.When YouTube hit the web and started generating buzz, Keelan wanted tosee if vaccine opponents had recognized it as a unguarded portal tothe world's Internet users. They had.Among the offerings were documentary-type videos capturing the viewsof parents of autistic children who blame particular vaccines orthimerosal, a mercury-based preservative formerly used in vaccinemanufacture, for the autism. (Thimerosal is still used in themanufacture of flu vaccine for children.)"It's the perfect venue for an anecdote, both positive or negative,"Keelan said in an interview."And while it's certainly not the communications structure trainedpublic health professionals would think to use, anecdotes - we knowfrom research - are incredibly powerful at conveying information aboutrisk.

And they're also incredibly persuasive."For this study, the authors searched YouTube for videos on"immunization" or "vaccination" on Feb. 20, 2007, roughly a year afterthe website was launched. They found 153. (On Tuesday, those samesearch terms brought up 1,668 hits.)Of that total, 73 were pro-immunization, 49 were anti-vaccination and31 were deemed "ambiguous." When the researchers looked at view countsand ratings, the videos with the anti-vaccination messages werewatched more often and were rated more highly by viewers."We were startled by our findings," admitted Keelan, an assistantprofessor of public health sciences at the University of Toronto."We were expecting to see maybe some difference between the wayviewers saw the negative videos versus the positive videos. But weweren't expecting it to be so significant."Janis Whitlock, a researcher at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.,has

been studying Internet message boards to see what role they mightplay in spreading information about self-injury. Whitlock, whorecently shifted her attention to YouTube, agreed the medium is apowerful one."YouTube has become ... the new message board. And it's so much morepowerful - at least for the self-injury stuff," she said. "Youcombined with the text these images and music ... phew... and it'svery intense."The authors and Whitlock said public health is going to have to cometo grips with this medium of information dissemination."It spreads. It spreads emotions. It spreads ideas. It spreadsmethods. It spreads means. It spreads reasons," said Whitlock, aprofessor with Cornell's Family Life Development Center."And we can't ignore ... that it's the dissemination of information,for ill or for good." acknowledged that in the past some vaccine advocates didn'tlike to address the claims

of opponents, assuming any discussion ofwhat was seen as views from the fringe was counterproductive. But theWeb 2.0 universe requires a new strategy, he suggested."In the past that could work, but it's not going to work anymore. Youcould ignore it and not discuss it and perhaps it would eventuallypeter out. But now there are ways for people with these viewpoints tocommunicate with each other," he said."These sites are now providing people with a mechanism by which theycan bypass the conventional filters and get their messages out. It canbe dangerous. The Internet is valueless in that respect."